What has sawing a lady in half to do with global warming?

Wednesday, 9th January 2008

At this time of year, exactly 70 years ago, I was taken to my first exhibition of professional conjuring.

He was not the only famous author to go in for magic tricks. Kipling sought successfully to become a member of the Magic Circle, where his letter of application is preserved, and J.B. Priestley enjoyed conjuring too. So did Edmund Wilson, though he did not see the business as merely a game: ‘There may be more to these feats and to our pleasure in them than we are likely to be conscious of... And the magician who escapes from the box: what is he but Adonis and Attis and all the rest of the corn gods that are buried and rise?’

The truth is, people who dabble in magic rarely know exactly where to draw the line between entertainment and mystification. We know the ancient Egyptians did magic tricks to amuse — there is both literary and pictorial evidence, and bits of apparatus survive. But this was only one tiny part of the huge place serious magic occupied in their culture — second only to their cult of the dead. The ambiguities and Janus-face of the trade persisted. Simon Magus, who figures briefly in the Acts of the Apostles and more at length in the apochrypha, fought a desperate battle for supremacy with St Peter, a war of black and white magic or between tricks and genuine miracles. Much of the witchcraft craze which swept Christendom between the 15th and 17th centuries was energised by tricks performed by women who resented the exclusively male role in performing the sacraments of the church. A subterranean war between the sexes has been fought throughout the whole history of conjuring in all its guises, harmless or sinister, black or white, trick or trade.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Paul Johnson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Peter Adler, Shenzhen

January 12th, 2008 3:52am Report this comment

Interesting points about conjuring and people’s wish to believe in spirituality... and ending in a gratuitous and nonsensical swipe at climate change science. Bring out facts about climate change and argue them, fine; but this ridiculous final-paragraph rhetorical flourish puts you to shame.

Kirk, Homewood, IL USA

January 12th, 2008 11:35pm Report this comment

Sorry to disagree, Peter, I believe the last paragraph is extremely germane. There are plenty of places to go to find serious (not speculative) climate information, but, as the gist of the article points out, many people would rather accept spurious data that conforms with their hopes/fears than look up the opposing viewpoints and trying to make a rational decision. Im my conversations with GW acceptors, they show a remarkable faith in what is clearly speculation, combined with a shocking ignorance of the historical facts (even, I might suggest, an open hostility to any presentation of countering data).

Brian Metcalf

January 13th, 2008 10:41am Report this comment

Kirk is one of those gullible Americans who happily parrot the mountain of misinformation being churned out by Exxon Mobil, the coal and car industry and his hugely amusing President, i.e. those with a vested interest in burning fossil fuels. Keep driving your Humvees Kirk I don't personally care. I am a misanthrope. Everywhere the delicate web of life is being torn apart.. and Planet Earth is about to start serious downsizing of those responsible. Us.